I don't normally comment on American politics, but this is just stupid. It's like going back two hundred years in time. What next? Stopping women from voting?
I've actually never seen something so archaic being actually introduced. It's more than a gripe--I really don't understand how such a thing can be legal under our Constitution.
I just keep reading the article over and over, waiting to figure out that it's a joke or something. I'm simply horrified. And are there doctors who WANT this?? That casts a very unpleasant light on the healthcare profession for me.
Ah yes, that's right. So you're probably feeling something similar to what I am for being from Michigan. Heh.
There are no words to express my horror over this. So... it says they can refuse to treat anyone for "moral, ethical or religious reasons"... does that mean that a Catholic could refuse to treat a Jew? Or a Jew could refuse to treat a Muslim? Where does it end??
Y'know, I was thinking and comparing this to my support of groups such as Nurses for the Rights of the Child, because on the outside, this seems like something that supporters of the Michigan bill would cheer. However, there's a subtle difference here. Refusal to participate in a procedure one finds immoral is quite different than refusal to treat a patient based on their age/gender/sexual orientation/religion/lifestyle is just plain prejudice.
I believe that healthcare providers can refuse to participate in procedures based on their moral opposition to the procedure itself (abortions, circumcisions, etc); however, withholding care based on the patient is wrong in every sense.
I basically said the same thing over on titti's LJ.
franlet is right. This law will set the medical profession back two hundred years.
I believe that healthcare providers can refuse to participate in procedures based on their moral opposition to the procedure itself (abortions, circumcisions, etc); however, withholding care based on the patient is wrong in every sense.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. There's a pretty massive difference between the two.
This is just insane. Not to mention terrifying. What next?
I'd be willing to challenge it and bring it to the Supreme Court, if only I were in America and could afford a lawyer. But isn't that the best way to get stupidevil laws overturned?
WTF? What happened to the OATH the doctor takes to treat all patients?!?! That is so wrong - but also COMPLETELY illegal. It must be. I am sitting here, absolutely stunned and sick to my stomach. Uch!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 06:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 06:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 06:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 06:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:09 am (UTC)Honey, I'm in the healthcare profession, and I couldn't agree more.
*gets degree in Library Science, STAT*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:15 am (UTC)There are no words to express my horror over this. So... it says they can refuse to treat anyone for "moral, ethical or religious reasons"... does that mean that a Catholic could refuse to treat a Jew? Or a Jew could refuse to treat a Muslim? Where does it end??
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 08:00 am (UTC)I believe that healthcare providers can refuse to participate in procedures based on their moral opposition to the procedure itself (abortions, circumcisions, etc); however, withholding care based on the patient is wrong in every sense.
I basically said the same thing over on
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 08:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 08:23 am (UTC)Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. There's a pretty massive difference between the two.
This is just insane. Not to mention terrifying. What next?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 08:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 08:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 03:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 05:39 pm (UTC)It shouldn't be, it's appalling.
Erm, yeah, hi *waves from GnH*
*p00tles off to sleepasit's1.40am and ohlordIhavetobeup inexactlyfivehours andtenminutes*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 07:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-24 09:27 pm (UTC)